Tangmere

Danny, perhaps I should have said "pending completion of repairs and on-going maintenance", ie. work has been underway for some time but, as with all things steam loco-related, they are never quick or simple.

JS

 

Indeed. NatPres would be nothing, if a drama couldn't be created from an uninformed or unrelated 'fact'.

 

Quite so James. Looking forward to seeing her back on the main line where she belongs.

 

What does pending mean in this context James i.e. what will trigger the start of the repairs and maintenance.

 

Cheers James, that's perfectly clear and understood. Thanks for putting us in the picture, hope all gets resolved with the minimum if hassle.

 

Yes I read his clarification too , but thanks for clearing up any misunderstandings.

 

Don't worry we'll find another misunderstanding that will be sufficient to set another hare running.

 

Especially when 34067 ends up doing the SD on 15th March!

 

As I mentioned in another thread, I was talking to one of the Lads from loco services/Hoskings, last Saturday night at the MHR,and Tangmere cropped up in the conversation - don't expect to see the loco this year.............. if we do then its a bonus, the RAIB are carrying out lots of metallurgical tests to get to the root cause............................. and the gentleman's last words were "thank f_ck for the 3rd rail being there! otherwise the would be NO mainline steam - if the 3rd rail hadn't been there, she would have gone over and taken the train with her..............................................."

 

I wonder what the person's employers take will be on him making statements like that in public now that you have all but identified him.

 

Well, he was just stating an obvious fact. The fact that the third rail was there saved the train from a serious accident.

 

I think all of us - and the RAIB - are only too well aware of it, but most of us were trying not to think about it...

 

I think the RAIB want to get to the source of the problem, ie are the suppliers/manufacturers cutting corners............................. given the recent spate of stay failures...................................

 

For one I haven't, and two he volunteered the information, I only asked the situation regarding Tangmere................................. He could have said "No comment"................................... and I would have replied "Fair enough!"

So please stop trying to stir the proverbial/make a mountain out of a mole hill!

Just be damn grateful we still have mainline steam it could have all ended there and then, with images splashed all over the media..............................................

 

I saw it on Sunday!

 

I will be interested in the results of the actions [noted in bold] being taken as I have been concerned for some time that current metal specifications are the source of problems. IMHO the metal inter-facing of original spec metals and current spec replacement parts have never been fully tested - except on the main line where stresses are much greater and any interface problems likely to arise much sooner but with greater potential for disaster. In one way I hope this proves not to be the case but after some years spent in the steel industry during the 1960s I feel that the specification changes in the current metal ranges are not best suited to modern day operation of steam locomotives.

 

I've been hearing the sort of conjecture that the Loco Services person apparently told someone, for years. Not just about Tangmere's con rod dropping down.

I've heard some things about goings on with many mainline and non- mainline steam locos; I'm not gong to repeat anything I've "heard", because I have no proof. But, if you believe every bit of tittle-tattle, nobody is immune from cutting corners, to keep the job going.....